Where's Everybody win Lm3,000 damages

KullHadd editor Felix Agius was yesterday ordered to pay the partners of Where's Everybody Lm3,000 libel damages.

Peppi Azzopardi, Lou Bondì and Paul Josef Vassallo sued for libel over the publication of an article headed "Ta' Where's Everybody Jaharbu," published in KullHadd on December 9, 2001, in which it was claimed that they had avoided answering some questions.

The article also alleged that Where's Everybody organised a special programme, L-istrina, over the Christmas period with the aim of collecting money for philanthropic purposes.

However, the unsigned article also contained allegations and implications that the firm received a commission on the money it collected during the programme.

Azzopardi, Bondì and Vassallo denied they had ever received a commission and added that their work in connection with L-istrina was purely on a voluntary basis.

They also denied that Where's Everybody received payment, and claimed that the programme was run on a purely philanthropic basis.

Plaintiffs declared that the programme had been produced for a number of years, and its credibility depended solely upon the goodwill of the participants and the organisers.

The programme was broadcast by Public Broadcasting Services Limited and the only persons who were paid for this yearly programme were the PBS employees.

Payment was also made for electricity consumption.

Azzopardi, Bondì and Vassallo added that the accounts for the programme had been made available to Felix Agius and defendant could assure himself that no commissions had been paid.

It resulted that the only payments made were those to refund expenses incurred and payment was made on production of receipts.

On his part Agius pleaded that the article was not libellous, and that it consisted of a journalistic coverage which was in the public interest in a democratic society.

Agius also pleaded that the article consisted of fair comment.

Magistrate Silvio Meli noted that a defence of fair comment was justified only if the comment was based on true fact and if it was fair and bona fide.

Agius's plea could therefore not subsist, said the court, for not only had he not proven the truth of the facts he had commented on, but the opposite had been proven by plaintiffs.

Agius could not therefore hide behind the screen of journalistic reporting in the public interest of a democratic society, for his real libellous intention had been proven.

In establishing the quantum of libel damages, the court took into consideration the fact that Agius could have been in possession of the full facts of the case, and that even after the facts were clearly established, he had persisted in his defence of the libel suit and had not retracted his allegations.